Pub Date: 27/06/2007 Pub: ST Page: 1,2Day: WednesdayEdition: FIRSTHeadline: Schools see a difference with full-time counsellorsBy: HO AI LIPage Heading: PRIMEPicture Caption:BACK ON THE RIGHT PATH: (From left) Tanglin Secondary 3 student and formerhabitual truant Tan Wei Liang with his counsellor Michelle Lee and TanglinSecondary teachers Solastri Suyot, Sharon Gan, Lau Yong Zhi and Tan Puay Eng.Subject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^EDUCATION^SCHOOLSource: SPH
This article discusses the impacts of having a full-time counselor in a school. It is part of MOE’s program to install a counselor in every school in hopes of providing the proper moral and emotional support that was previously lacking in schools.
When I was in primary school, my school did not have any counselors. Instead our form teachers acted as counselors, often addressing our problems the best way they can. However they seem to forget that the role of a counselor is vastly different from that of a teacher, and hence they usually end up telling us what to do. How typically teacher-like. When I moved to secondary school, I was pleasantly surprised to discover the existence of a counselor, although admittedly I have yet to go visit him. However, being a teenager myself, I can identify the need for someone who can guide us along in life, especially since we are in a very unstable stage of our life.
The typical societal stereotype of counselors is that they are people who deal with the deviants of society. They are called in to redress the wrongs in their client’s life. Their job is to make bad people turn good. This is how society typically views counselors, and it was a view I shared for quite a long time. Their real job, however, is to counsel, hence the name counselor. To counsel means to give advice, to help someone sort out his or her feelings. Therefore a counselor’s real job is simply to guide people, to listen to them and give them advice. As more and more students become aware of the existence of counselors in their school, I feel that it is imperative that we as students understand that counselors were put for us, and that it is perfectly fine to visit the counselor once in a while, since I believe the majority hold the same societal stereotype. I therefore applaud the MOE’s efforts to place a counselor in every school to reach out to the school populace.
Given the reasons and benefits of having a counselor in one’s school, the article highlights a couple of problems that the execution of the program might hold. One is that there is a lack of properly trained counselors. As noted by Mr Teo of Hwa Chong Institution, a freshly qualified counselor is required to log 600 supervised counseling hours in order to become a member of the Singapore Association for Counseling. Also since most counselors come out from the line of teaching, it is imperative that they learn to talk less and listen more, and less of telling them what to do, something very typical of teachers. Another obstacle is that the schools themselves may not be supportive of the counselors, since when the effectiveness of counselors is compared to the effectiveness of teachers, the counselors inevitably lose out. Everyone has a different personality and thus requires different amounts of time to resolve their problems. It is impossible to demand of a counselor to resolve a case in a certain number of sessions, because it does not work that way.
Having said the above, I feel that for this counseling program to progress further, it requires more understanding and support on the school’s part. Also since the counselors here are facing students, the training they undergo should cater to understanding the adolescent more, something that the Singapore Association for Counseling should look at. All in all, I laud the MOE’s efforts to cater to the needs of the students, no longer just academically, but developmentally.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Blog entry 5
Pub Date: 18/09/2007 Pub: ST Page: H11Day: TuesdayEdition: FIRSTHeadline: Male homosexual sex to remain a crimeBy: RADHA BASUPage Heading: HOMESubject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^CRIME/NATIONAL SECURITY^CRIME/COURTS^SEX OFFENCES POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS^PARLIAMENTSource: SPH
This article talks about the most hotly debated topic in Singapore, homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality. It discusses the recent review of the Penal Code, which drew certain responses from the minority few.
In a recent NTU survey conducted, 70% of the populace was still against the notion of homosexuality, which serves as an indication of the conservativeness of our society. It was, however, a decrease in as compared to an 80-something% of the population who said no a few years back when they conducted the same survey. This shows that indeed Singapore is started to shake off its shackles which bonded her to old values and traditions. We must admit that in this modern day and age, homosexuality is becoming a more widely accepted way of life. Which is why in Singapore, more and more people are being more open to homosexuality, some even becoming one.
With regards to the Penal Code retaining Section 377a, many people responded to it very strongly, blasting the government as being conservative, unreceptive and discriminative. They argue that homosexuality should not be made a crime, because science says that homosexuality is inborn, so the person really has no say in his sexual orientation. However, we must look from the government’s point of view. As said in the article, Section 377a of the Penal Code was retained due to strong majority support. It acted in the best interests of the community as a whole, so since most people do not accept homosexual sex as yet, the government had to criminalize it. It also said that although male homosexual sex was to remain a crime, it would not actively pursue and charge anyone who engages in it, so long as they do not get found out. It shows that the government did take into considering the viewpoints of gays, and does not hope to totally eradicate homosexuality.
Personally, I being a Christian and having grown up in the values of Christianity, am strongly against homosexuality. However, it does not mean that I despise the homosexual. Like the proverb says “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I believe that all homosexuals are good people, apart from the fact that they are homosexual. However if I were to look at the issue from a viewpoint of a normal person, I would support the governments decision to criminalize gay sex, but at the same time I would not condemn homosexuals to eternal damnation. I don’t think I could ever feel what the homosexuals are feeling with regards to the outlawing of their favorite activity, but I certainly hope that they understand why the government did what they did, and to take it in their stride. Perhaps, one day they might actually get what they wish for, but for now the best that could happen would be for both sides to understand each other, and not force their own way.
This article talks about the most hotly debated topic in Singapore, homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality. It discusses the recent review of the Penal Code, which drew certain responses from the minority few.
In a recent NTU survey conducted, 70% of the populace was still against the notion of homosexuality, which serves as an indication of the conservativeness of our society. It was, however, a decrease in as compared to an 80-something% of the population who said no a few years back when they conducted the same survey. This shows that indeed Singapore is started to shake off its shackles which bonded her to old values and traditions. We must admit that in this modern day and age, homosexuality is becoming a more widely accepted way of life. Which is why in Singapore, more and more people are being more open to homosexuality, some even becoming one.
With regards to the Penal Code retaining Section 377a, many people responded to it very strongly, blasting the government as being conservative, unreceptive and discriminative. They argue that homosexuality should not be made a crime, because science says that homosexuality is inborn, so the person really has no say in his sexual orientation. However, we must look from the government’s point of view. As said in the article, Section 377a of the Penal Code was retained due to strong majority support. It acted in the best interests of the community as a whole, so since most people do not accept homosexual sex as yet, the government had to criminalize it. It also said that although male homosexual sex was to remain a crime, it would not actively pursue and charge anyone who engages in it, so long as they do not get found out. It shows that the government did take into considering the viewpoints of gays, and does not hope to totally eradicate homosexuality.
Personally, I being a Christian and having grown up in the values of Christianity, am strongly against homosexuality. However, it does not mean that I despise the homosexual. Like the proverb says “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I believe that all homosexuals are good people, apart from the fact that they are homosexual. However if I were to look at the issue from a viewpoint of a normal person, I would support the governments decision to criminalize gay sex, but at the same time I would not condemn homosexuals to eternal damnation. I don’t think I could ever feel what the homosexuals are feeling with regards to the outlawing of their favorite activity, but I certainly hope that they understand why the government did what they did, and to take it in their stride. Perhaps, one day they might actually get what they wish for, but for now the best that could happen would be for both sides to understand each other, and not force their own way.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Blog Entry 4
hihi once more
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18742305/
This article talks about the recent spate of gruesome crimes that have been occurring in Japan. On a more serious note, it highlights the gradual deterioration of Japanese societal values. Japan, as one of the more long standing monarchal societies, has been known to be a stickler for tradition. For some of these people to have turned into mindless life-takers raises a serious issue the current state of moral values in the world.
One factor that the article highlights to have had some effect on the loss of moral values is globalization. As we all know, globalization has had some very far-reaching effects. It has started an exchange of cultures around the world, and with it, some of the more negative aspects of certain cultures. Societal values, as highlighted in my previous entry, do not seem to be as strong or as important in the lives of the people in America. There are some American shows around that portray the American family as fragmented. We see children rebelling against their parents, parents being ruled by their children, parents fighting with each other. Japanese families, however, have mostly been portrayed as very tight-knit and traditional. It is not uncommon to see the basic values of filial piety and respect for elders in these shows. It basically shows a stark contrast in the values treasured in these two communities. With globalization, these two cultures are starting to mix. The current generation of Japan is being influenced by not only America, but every single part of the world. They are losing hold on the values and traditions laid down by their forefathers.
We have seen how Japan is slowing losing its grasp of its own heritage. What does that bode for the rest of the liberal world? Countries typically run by religion and traditions have generally strong if one-track-minded communities, as they all share one common vision, or are forced to. They hold fast to the values and traditions passed down from their fathers because it is their way of life. More liberal countries, on the other hand, leave room for people to find their own way of thinking, their own way of living their life. They don’t have any values to hold on too, nor is there any need for them to do so. The result – America. I fear that if Japan, a country of long-lasting history and a stickler for values and traditions, can fall prey to the ways of the world, we would fall even harder.
The world, not just Japan, is slowly letting itself slide away from the values and traditions that have for so long sustained our societies. In this time of even more turmoil and chaos, it is our job to ensure that we hold fast to these values, for if we fail, we fail the future of the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18742305/
This article talks about the recent spate of gruesome crimes that have been occurring in Japan. On a more serious note, it highlights the gradual deterioration of Japanese societal values. Japan, as one of the more long standing monarchal societies, has been known to be a stickler for tradition. For some of these people to have turned into mindless life-takers raises a serious issue the current state of moral values in the world.
One factor that the article highlights to have had some effect on the loss of moral values is globalization. As we all know, globalization has had some very far-reaching effects. It has started an exchange of cultures around the world, and with it, some of the more negative aspects of certain cultures. Societal values, as highlighted in my previous entry, do not seem to be as strong or as important in the lives of the people in America. There are some American shows around that portray the American family as fragmented. We see children rebelling against their parents, parents being ruled by their children, parents fighting with each other. Japanese families, however, have mostly been portrayed as very tight-knit and traditional. It is not uncommon to see the basic values of filial piety and respect for elders in these shows. It basically shows a stark contrast in the values treasured in these two communities. With globalization, these two cultures are starting to mix. The current generation of Japan is being influenced by not only America, but every single part of the world. They are losing hold on the values and traditions laid down by their forefathers.
We have seen how Japan is slowing losing its grasp of its own heritage. What does that bode for the rest of the liberal world? Countries typically run by religion and traditions have generally strong if one-track-minded communities, as they all share one common vision, or are forced to. They hold fast to the values and traditions passed down from their fathers because it is their way of life. More liberal countries, on the other hand, leave room for people to find their own way of thinking, their own way of living their life. They don’t have any values to hold on too, nor is there any need for them to do so. The result – America. I fear that if Japan, a country of long-lasting history and a stickler for values and traditions, can fall prey to the ways of the world, we would fall even harder.
The world, not just Japan, is slowly letting itself slide away from the values and traditions that have for so long sustained our societies. In this time of even more turmoil and chaos, it is our job to ensure that we hold fast to these values, for if we fail, we fail the future of the world.
Blog Entry 3
hihi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037721/site/newsweek/
This article talks about the use of steroids in teenagers in the sporting arena. The teenagers from Heritage High who used steroids were reported to have done so in hopes of becoming physically superior to their rival schools, thus ensuring an easier victory. This highlights a serious issue of how far a teenager is willing to risk his body to attain physical superiority and victory in the sporting arena.
As the article highlighted, in Texas kids are becoming more and more influenced by the sports culture of Texas, where sports legends are treated like kings and paid accordingly. This means that these kids treat these buff bodies as their idol, and as such try as much as possible to emulate their physicality. Some reasons why they are so hard-pressed to attain such a physical standard is probably because they see these sporting stars as the epitome of success and material well-being. This is definitely the dream of many kids, especially those who do not come from especially well-to-do families. They then try to emulate their idol’s success in their own school or at competitions. The thing is, not everybody is capable of attaining such a powerful physicality and strength and such an early age. Keep in mind that these teenagers are between the ages of 12-18, whereas the legends of Major League are in their 20-30s. They have had so much more time to train their bodies, not to mention that the whole life is training their bodies to physical perfection. Compare this to the high school student struggling to cope with their sporting activities with their invariably more important academic commitments. It is simply impossible to emulate the physical perfection of their idols. Because some teenagers find it impossible, they turn to body-damaging risks such as steroids to improve their chances of attaining physical superiority.
As said in the article steroids have many undesirable effects which teenagers don’t particularly pay attention to. In one article I read while doing some background research about steroids, it said that steroids are a sex hormone, much like testosterone. Piling hormones upon hormones upon your body’s already existing hormones causes your testicles to shut down. You suffer from severe emotional problems. Teenagers are not aware of these side effects, and so continue to take steroids. They are not aware that eventually steroids will stunt their height potential and create more strain on his tendons that have to support the disproportional growth of the muscle they support.
What needs to be done is to create awareness of these side effects and how they will ironically hinder them from achieving their dreams. The best way to do so is get their idols to explain how they shouldn’t try to achieve the currently impossible with steroids. The teenagers must understand how their idols got to their current position before they can understand the folly of their own actions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037721/site/newsweek/
This article talks about the use of steroids in teenagers in the sporting arena. The teenagers from Heritage High who used steroids were reported to have done so in hopes of becoming physically superior to their rival schools, thus ensuring an easier victory. This highlights a serious issue of how far a teenager is willing to risk his body to attain physical superiority and victory in the sporting arena.
As the article highlighted, in Texas kids are becoming more and more influenced by the sports culture of Texas, where sports legends are treated like kings and paid accordingly. This means that these kids treat these buff bodies as their idol, and as such try as much as possible to emulate their physicality. Some reasons why they are so hard-pressed to attain such a physical standard is probably because they see these sporting stars as the epitome of success and material well-being. This is definitely the dream of many kids, especially those who do not come from especially well-to-do families. They then try to emulate their idol’s success in their own school or at competitions. The thing is, not everybody is capable of attaining such a powerful physicality and strength and such an early age. Keep in mind that these teenagers are between the ages of 12-18, whereas the legends of Major League are in their 20-30s. They have had so much more time to train their bodies, not to mention that the whole life is training their bodies to physical perfection. Compare this to the high school student struggling to cope with their sporting activities with their invariably more important academic commitments. It is simply impossible to emulate the physical perfection of their idols. Because some teenagers find it impossible, they turn to body-damaging risks such as steroids to improve their chances of attaining physical superiority.
As said in the article steroids have many undesirable effects which teenagers don’t particularly pay attention to. In one article I read while doing some background research about steroids, it said that steroids are a sex hormone, much like testosterone. Piling hormones upon hormones upon your body’s already existing hormones causes your testicles to shut down. You suffer from severe emotional problems. Teenagers are not aware of these side effects, and so continue to take steroids. They are not aware that eventually steroids will stunt their height potential and create more strain on his tendons that have to support the disproportional growth of the muscle they support.
What needs to be done is to create awareness of these side effects and how they will ironically hinder them from achieving their dreams. The best way to do so is get their idols to explain how they shouldn’t try to achieve the currently impossible with steroids. The teenagers must understand how their idols got to their current position before they can understand the folly of their own actions.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
blog entry 2
here goesss...
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12409480/
This article is about 5 teenagers who plotted a shooting rampage in their school. My first reaction to reading this article was “what the…” as these are only 16-18 year olds! 16-18 year olds plotting to terrorize their school with guns. Guns and knives and extra ammunition. The only time I ever held a gun was at my school’s air rifle trial. They even had documents relating to firearms and Armageddon. This raises a serious question of how American teens are living their lives.
I understand that in the US, people are allowed to own guns. But who would sell guns to 16 year old teenagers? The black market dealers probably, since 16 year olds are still below the age limit to own a gun. And who would know where these black market dealers are? Probably their friends who spend half their time living with their gangs and the other half having a gang war. Teens are now so exposed to violence on the television that they start to emulate what they see, especially if their circumstances are the same as the characters they see on television. The typical teen that joins gangs probably comes from a broken family, with the mother and father constantly fighting, a family with financial problems, or a family with parents who just don’t care. Of course, my perception of these teens above probably stemmed from television too. The point is that these teens do not have the right positive influence in their formative years, and that is why they grow up learning to be destructive.
Another point I would like to highlight that the article didn’t really touch on is the fact that they had documents pertaining to Armageddon. Biblically, Armageddon refers to the final battle between the kings of the world at the end of the world, but normally it refers to some big battle, much like World War 1. The reason I’m highlighting the Armageddon documents is because I think these teens may have thought they were some harbingers of doom and destruction and that it was their task to start the end of the world. This is a very scary concept as it links their intentions to more religious matters. It’s something like a westernized version of Jemaah Islamiyah.
After reading this article, I feel that indeed the future of the world is very cloudy, what with school shootouts that border on terrorism. American teenagers are very much wasting their time trying to rebel against society. The world really should start taking an interest in the welfare of our future leaders, lest they lead us into an era of turmoil.
whee finished.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12409480/
This article is about 5 teenagers who plotted a shooting rampage in their school. My first reaction to reading this article was “what the…” as these are only 16-18 year olds! 16-18 year olds plotting to terrorize their school with guns. Guns and knives and extra ammunition. The only time I ever held a gun was at my school’s air rifle trial. They even had documents relating to firearms and Armageddon. This raises a serious question of how American teens are living their lives.
I understand that in the US, people are allowed to own guns. But who would sell guns to 16 year old teenagers? The black market dealers probably, since 16 year olds are still below the age limit to own a gun. And who would know where these black market dealers are? Probably their friends who spend half their time living with their gangs and the other half having a gang war. Teens are now so exposed to violence on the television that they start to emulate what they see, especially if their circumstances are the same as the characters they see on television. The typical teen that joins gangs probably comes from a broken family, with the mother and father constantly fighting, a family with financial problems, or a family with parents who just don’t care. Of course, my perception of these teens above probably stemmed from television too. The point is that these teens do not have the right positive influence in their formative years, and that is why they grow up learning to be destructive.
Another point I would like to highlight that the article didn’t really touch on is the fact that they had documents pertaining to Armageddon. Biblically, Armageddon refers to the final battle between the kings of the world at the end of the world, but normally it refers to some big battle, much like World War 1. The reason I’m highlighting the Armageddon documents is because I think these teens may have thought they were some harbingers of doom and destruction and that it was their task to start the end of the world. This is a very scary concept as it links their intentions to more religious matters. It’s something like a westernized version of Jemaah Islamiyah.
After reading this article, I feel that indeed the future of the world is very cloudy, what with school shootouts that border on terrorism. American teenagers are very much wasting their time trying to rebel against society. The world really should start taking an interest in the welfare of our future leaders, lest they lead us into an era of turmoil.
whee finished.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
my blog entry: organ trading
here goes my first entry
URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/lf_nm/singapore_organs_dc_3
This article talks about the sensitive issues surrounding the donation of organs of dead people. In Singapore, the current Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) states that hospitals may use organs of all non-Muslim patients who die unless the patients have personally opted out of the scheme.
Many people were willing to donate, but few came forward to do so. So HOTA was introduced in 1987 to address the shortage of kidney donations. All Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are automatically included in this scheme unless they indicated their wish to be left out. Initially in 1987, only kidneys were allowed to be taken and only if the cause of death was accidental. In the amendment to the Bill in 2004, HOTA was extended to include death by all causes and transplantation of liver, heart and cornea.
The big hullabaloo over organ donation was that all citizens were assumed to be willing donors. The fact is, since HOTA was introduced in 1987, those who were already over 21 may not have been fully aware of what HOTA was. The Ministry of Health states that when a person turns 21, he or she is sent a brochure of HOTA, but it did not say if those already 21 were duly informed. Therefore, even if a person was unwilling to donate, if he did not know about the scheme, his organs were automatically used for transplantation.
The argument here is that instead of the state “requisitioning” the organs upon death, the donors be allowed to sell their organs. Those in support of this notion say that if monetary incentive makes a person willing to donate his organs, so be it. Better that than go against the wishes of the dead. The problem with such organ trading is that it creates a black market and differentiates the rich from the poor. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the donors are usually the poor or the uneducated, where their goal is to get as much money as possible. However, organ traffickers set the buying price at as low as US$1000, and the selling price at as much at $200,000. This means that only the rich get to benefit from the organ trade. This is precisely why HOTA was introduced; to give everybody an equal chance to get a transplant.
Personally, I oppose organ trading, as I feel it is an exploitation of the poor people and a sort of “social status” to be able to buy organs. I feel that organs should go to people who need them the most, not to the highest bidder on the black market. However, I do agree that before any removal of organs is made, the family should be consulted first, as technically they are the deceased’s closest kin, not the state. I do hope most people will be willing to donate their organs as it will seriously benefit the pool of patients out there waiting for organs.
URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/lf_nm/singapore_organs_dc_3
This article talks about the sensitive issues surrounding the donation of organs of dead people. In Singapore, the current Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) states that hospitals may use organs of all non-Muslim patients who die unless the patients have personally opted out of the scheme.
Many people were willing to donate, but few came forward to do so. So HOTA was introduced in 1987 to address the shortage of kidney donations. All Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are automatically included in this scheme unless they indicated their wish to be left out. Initially in 1987, only kidneys were allowed to be taken and only if the cause of death was accidental. In the amendment to the Bill in 2004, HOTA was extended to include death by all causes and transplantation of liver, heart and cornea.
The big hullabaloo over organ donation was that all citizens were assumed to be willing donors. The fact is, since HOTA was introduced in 1987, those who were already over 21 may not have been fully aware of what HOTA was. The Ministry of Health states that when a person turns 21, he or she is sent a brochure of HOTA, but it did not say if those already 21 were duly informed. Therefore, even if a person was unwilling to donate, if he did not know about the scheme, his organs were automatically used for transplantation.
The argument here is that instead of the state “requisitioning” the organs upon death, the donors be allowed to sell their organs. Those in support of this notion say that if monetary incentive makes a person willing to donate his organs, so be it. Better that than go against the wishes of the dead. The problem with such organ trading is that it creates a black market and differentiates the rich from the poor. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the donors are usually the poor or the uneducated, where their goal is to get as much money as possible. However, organ traffickers set the buying price at as low as US$1000, and the selling price at as much at $200,000. This means that only the rich get to benefit from the organ trade. This is precisely why HOTA was introduced; to give everybody an equal chance to get a transplant.
Personally, I oppose organ trading, as I feel it is an exploitation of the poor people and a sort of “social status” to be able to buy organs. I feel that organs should go to people who need them the most, not to the highest bidder on the black market. However, I do agree that before any removal of organs is made, the family should be consulted first, as technically they are the deceased’s closest kin, not the state. I do hope most people will be willing to donate their organs as it will seriously benefit the pool of patients out there waiting for organs.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)